The bipartisan groups working on immigration reform
legislation are nearing completion of their legislative proposals. The
Senate “gang of eight” plans to unveil its bill the week of April 15 and the
House group will follow suit the week of April 22. Both chambers plan to
consider the legislation in regular order, meaning that they will go through
the normal committee process. This timetable could see committee mark-ups
as early as May, with floor consideration in June and a House and Senate
conference before the August recess. It is important to note that while
this issue remains a top priority in both chambers, it could very likely take
much longer.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO recently
negotiated an agreement on a visa program for lower-skilled workers, which has
been a major point of contention in past immigration reform efforts. It
would be a new program called the W-visa for lesser skilled, non-seasonal workers.
The visa program could include in-home service workers, a group that is
expected to be in greater demand as the population ages, and is significant to
counties that provide those services.

The agreement increases the number of W-visas issued—to
start at 20,000 the first year and increase gradually until they reach 75,000
in the fourth year. After that date, the visas would be adjusted based on
a formula that would take into account job market demands and economic
conditions with a minimum of 20,000 and a maximum of 200,000 visas a
year. Additionally, one-third of all visas would be available for
businesses with fewer than 25 employees. The number of visas would be
determined by a new bureau within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. W-visa holders would be able to
apply for green cards and change employers and will be covered by state and
federal labor laws. Employers would be required to pay all fees
associated with the program and will have to offer wages and working conditions
that don’t adversely affect other U.S. workers. This agreement is
considered a significant step forward because this was one of the issues that
derailed immigration reform in 2006 and 2007.